ANALIZĂ COMPARATIVĂ ASUPRA STATALITĂȚII ȘI A RECUNOAȘTERII INTERNAȚIONALE ÎN CAZURILE TRANSNISTRIA ȘI KOSOVO
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ON STATESHIP AND INTERNATIONAL RECOGNITION IN THE CASES OF TRANSNISTRIA AND KOSOVO

Summary/Abstract: This article addresses the interplay between statehood and international recognition through a critical comparative inquiry into two paradigmatic post-Soviet and post-Yugoslav cases: Transnistria and Kosovo. Departing from the declarative framework of the Montevideo Convention (1933) and integrating constructivist and realist perspectives in international law, the study questions whether juridical criteria of statehood remain analytically sufficient in an era of politicized recognition. The findings reveal a profound asymmetry: while Kosovo’s partial integration into the international order exemplifies a geopolitically facilitated statehood, Transnistria embodies a deliberately perpetuated de facto existence, sustained by external patronage and strategic ambiguity. Recognition, therefore, emerges not as a neutral legal act but as an instrument of selective legitimation embedded in global power hierarchies. Hence, the paper argues that the coherence of international law on statehood is undermined by the prevalence of double standards, where political expediency eclipses normative consistency. Ultimately, the study advances a critique of the declarative theory’s descriptive rigidity and calls for a reconceptualization of recognition as a performative practice that simultaneously constitutes and constrains sovereignty in contemporary international society.

• Details
• Contents